Ruskin serve papers etc blah blah blah
hope they lose everything.
I would return the wreck to the Museum , end the conflict while keeping the parts that belong rightfully to the BB Team .
-Mr Smith can go on , re-building new sections to complete a new BB , while the Museum can rebuild the wreck of the BB with their own funds .
-in the end , there would be 2 Blue Birds , but most important , the Museum would not have any rights over the BB owned by the BB Team ,
The iss wmcd1 is that there is no "wreck" everything that could be used has be lovingly and very carefully repaired, recrafted and made back into the boat.
Whys should Bill and the team be put into a position to build a new boat, and that's what it would be with zero heritage from the original?
the Museum owns the scrap metal portion that was restored . the BBP can claim a right of ownership of the Bluebird of at least 51% .
I would agree with you in principle. But ownership is what the Courts will have to decide as I guess Ruskin and Gina et al maintain title is with Ruskin. It is unfortunate that Coniston Lake was within the boundaries of the UK otherwise salvor's rights would apply and there would be no question of title. It would be with Bill Smith. Time for negotiation has passed. Ruskin has pushed the red button.
The Courts will have to clarify the Rights of Mr Smith / BBP insofar as the ownership of the BB , in the end it will be a long and costly legal battle for the Museum , regardless of the final decision .
It is sad that my first post should be about the unfortunate attitude of the Ruskin Museum. Especially as I have followed Bluebird's re-build since inception. I last saw both Bluebirds ,car and boat, at the Melbourne Exhibition building in 1963 or was it 1964. A long long time ago. These machines were awe inspiring, futuristic and totally marvellous and as a 12 year old I fell in love with them and remain so to this day. Apologies for the digression. It seems to me that the Courts will have to firstly decide ownership of the wreck and then ownership of the current machine. If insurance was paid out presumably to the estate of Donald then the wreck would have become the property of the insurer. The raised wreck was not the property of Tonia who was presumably the benefactor of the estate nor the Campbell Family Trust ( Gina et al) and therefore title could not have passed to Ruskin. The wreck at the bottom of the lake was worthless. On recovery it became more valuable and now because of the intellectual, physical and inventive work of the BPP it is very valuable. One cannot help thinking the primary motive of Ruskin and associated others is pure and simple avarice.
"The Ruskin Museum would have preferred that this matter be resolved without the need to resort to litigation. However, we have been left with no choice but to issue [proceedings] in order to find a resolution for all.". - Jeff Carroll quote from the BBC website, dated 23/2/23.
So why didn't you go through proper mediation channels to resolve this problem before issuing [proceedings] then, Mr. Carroll?
The fact is that RM trustees have always had the option to mediate, but have flatly refused nearly every single time. There is more than enough evidence in the public domain to substantiate this.
Perhaps Mr. Carroll needs to be reminded that he very publicly stated that any sort of mediation or discussion was off of the table with the BBP a couple of years ago, when both he and Bill were interviewed by BBC radio and mediation was suggested by the on-air presenter.
The museum trustees have also stated in their "open letters" that they would not discuss, nor mediate with the BBP.
Has every avenue been exhausted before issuing legal proceedings, Mr. Carroll?
I don't think so. Not even close.
According to the announcement, "Gifted to the Museum by the Campbell Family in 2006. How can you gift something you don't own?
Announcing that on Facebook!